# Ban on pit bulls **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 1, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988 "2004-10-01T03:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/221 "2004-10-25T22:38:26Z")
I said from the beginning that bans are not a great long term solution but you’re not going to be happy until I join the march on Toronto. Well that ain’t happening. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/222 "2004-10-25T22:40:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > BTW, I read the CDC’s opinion long before you posted it. If you try reading the first page you’ll see I was the first to link to them. Duh, that would be why I stated those quotes were from YOUR cites in my post. You know, one of the posts you can’t manage to read because it has too many (big?) words. > [@](#): > > I know you love dogs and clearly hold certain breeds close to your heart redtail23 so this may be hard for you to believe but: as far as “where does the ban end?” general society wouldn’t even blink if they banned every breed that looked remotely like a Pit. Actually, you’re wrong about some of that. I don’t \ have a dog in this fight. I’ve never owned a dog that would fall under any breed bans - I prefer amiable, easy to handle mutts. I just have an aversion to stupidity. You may be right about “general society” - it’s a classic Niemoller situation, and general society ain’t too bright about such things. Usually because it’s made up of people like y’all, who prefer to ignore evidence and live by wishful thinking. So, if a ban is put in place, **CarnalK** , then where is the “political will” going to come from to make any changes to licensing laws, or to enforce existing laws? You know, those things that might actually do something to solve the problem. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/223 "2004-10-25T22:49:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I said from the beginning that bans are not a great long term solution but you’re not going to be happy until I join the march on Toronto. Well that ain’t happening. Not true. I’d be perfectly happy if you’d just quit arguing for something that you know (and have occasionally admitted) is wrong. So essentially, the pro-banning position comes down to this: We know it won’t actually work, but we’re going to do it anyway. We can’t answer even the most basic questions about how a ban will be implemented in the real world, but we’re not about to let that stop us! Screw anyone that has dogs we don’t like; we’ll ban them because we can, knowing that it’s pointless. We refuse to put that same time, energy, and money into trying anything that might actually work, because this is easier. The fact that it’s useless is beside the point - at least we look busy and can congratulate ourselves on “taking action”. Does that about sum it up? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/224 "2004-10-26T00:20:23Z")
> [@MisterThyristor](#): > > I don’t understant this attitude at all. > > First of all, taking people to court is expensive? Doesn’t the fine include the cost of taking them to court? Prosecuting people in court is extremely expensive here in Ontario. Most fines do not cover the costs of prosecution in the courts. Even for simple by-law prosecutions, the costs are in the thousands. > [@MisterThyristor](#): > > Secondly, if the fine is pathetic, who is to blame for that? Obviously, the government for not enforcing their own laws. The government sets fine levels that are proportional to the infraction, not the cost of prosecution. Quite simply, fines that are not proportional the infraction would not be supported by Joe Public. Beyond this is the policy of using set fines to encourage enforcement, so that folks get their wrists slapped and modify their behavior without being hauled through the expensive courts. If a fine is too high in proportion to the infraction, then the accused will insist on defending the matter in court rather than simply pay the fine. This takes us back to the problem of court being very costly for the government. Any punishment must be enforceable. Fining the socks off a poor person will not be done by the courts, for you can not get blood from a stone. Prior to sentencing, submissions are made by counsel for the convicted to help ensure that the court does not lay down too hard a fine. > [@MisterThyristor](#): > > Thirdly, “controlling the owners is way beyond us”??? So we are giving up on crime now? We are willing to punish (even kill) the dog because of the actions of the owner? To what other crime do we say that? “Oh, we haven’t been able to keep people from speeding, so let’s just stop enforcing the laws.” Or go the other way and put speed governors on cars. It is not that controlling owners is way beyond us, but rather that it is a lot simpler and a lot less expensive to ban dangerous dogs than to set up a regulation and enforcement regime that meets the demands for public safety. Please note that Ontario is not punishing dogs or killing dogs by banning certain types of dogs, for there will be a grandfather clause. Spaying or neutering a pet is hardly punishment. > [@MisterThyristor](#): > > If you want government to enforce their own laws, put pressure on the government. Get people who think the same way as you to petition your councilman or local representative to strengthen the enforcement. That is precisely what has happened. A lot of people voiced their concerns about dangerous dogs, and demanded a ban. > [@MisterThyristor](#): > > A hefty fine can be a pretty strong deterrent if it is enforced. If the city government can threaten to jail me if I fail to pay the fine for a noisy muffler, they can certainly do the same for an irresponsible dog owner. As I pointed out above, hefty fines leads to fewer voluntary payments and more court hearings, which are very expensive for the government. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/225 "2004-10-26T00:30:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Screw anyone that has dogs we don’t like; we’ll ban them because we can, knowing that it’s pointless. So that sums up my position does it? Well go fuck yourself. In the real world your extreme view on the outrage of a ban is lacking any power so I guess I shouldn’t waste anymore time trying to explain my actual postion. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/226 "2004-10-26T00:46:20Z")
Though in fairness i should kinda contradict myself some American states have passed legislation disallowing breed specific bans by municipalities. I was thinking only of my local reality and the topic of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/227 "2004-10-26T01:05:51Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > **Muffin** , welcome back! > > So are you willing to answer any of the questions in post [166](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5399494&postcount=166) , or are you too just going to pretend they never got asked? > > How about any of the questions I asked **MelCthefirst** in post 210? Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 166: > [@redtail23](#): > > I just don’t get it - why the attachment to this idea? I understand that, on the surface, it seems like a quick & easy fix. What I don’t understand is why people are so devoted to it that they’ll repeatedly ignore all evidence to the contrary. I’m asking seriously here, I truly don’t understand the disconnect. Yes, it is a quick and easy fix. Not a perfect fix, but hopefully something that will slow down the rate of serious attacks. > [@redtail23](#): > > I **CarnalK** , **MelCthefirst** , anyone - Since you advocate breed-banning as a solution to dog attacks, can you please answer the simple question repeatedly asked already: which dogs are you going to ban? > > Pitbulls? Rottweilers? Dobermans? German Shepherds? (All breeds which have, at various times, undergone the “ban 'em!” routine.) > > Labradors? Chow chows? Collies? St. Bernards? Newfoundlands? Airedales? Chihuahuas? Mastiffs? Any that are disproportionately dangerous, with particular attention to those that are popular with skids. > [@redtail23](#): > > With cross-breeds, how much “bad dog” is too much? 50%? 25%? 1 drop? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e. if it is “substantially similar” to a defined breed or breeds or set of characteristics) . > [@redtail23](#): > > And who gets to decide just what a mutt is made of? Citizens panicked by rumors of killer breeds? Neighbors feuding over other issues that decide to use breed-bans for revenge (a tactic not uncommon around here with code enforcement)? Police officers? Judges? City officials? Animal control? Veterinarians? Please note that the first five generally don’t have any specific knowledge in this area, the next-to-last may or may not know anything about dog breeds, and the latter will tell you there’s no sure method to determine parentage, they’re just guessing. If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence. > [@redtail23](#): > > What happens when the owner denies that his unregistered dog is breed “X”? How does one prove/disprove this? If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence. > [@redtail23](#): > > Will you switch to banning by characteristics? All dogs over 75 pounds? Over 50 pounds? Over 20 pounds? By height? By color? By head-shape? By body-type? That might be worth persuing. > [@redtail23](#): > > Since you seem convinced that this is a valid methodology, can you please give some specifics of how it would work? Nope. Never said it was a valid methodology. I’ll leave that to whomever drafts the law. I’m quite satisfied with the duck approach. > [@redtail23](#): > > Also, if the ban doesn’t work due to the problems previously mentioned, will you just extend it to include the new “dangerous breeds”? Certainly. Roll with the target. You know how animal control by-laws are drafted in Ontario? All animals of certain types (e.g. all birds, etc.) are banned outright, and then specific exceptions are made to permit certain animals under certain conditions. It is not that you are not permitted to keep certain animals, but rather that you are only allowed to keep certain animals. If banning dangerous dogs is too problematic due to the difficulty in identifying certain types of dogs, then it is a simple matter to legislate around this the way animal control by-laws in Ontario have been doing for years. Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 210: > [@redtail23](#): > > I don’t understand how an import ban can be effective, unless you’ve already got some means of keeping people from breeding their own and/or bringing in crossbreeds. Can you give me more details? I am not aware of an import ban having been proposed. > [@redtail23](#): > > If taking dogs away from irresponsible owners won’t solve the problem (because they just get new dogs), then how will taking banned dogs away solve the problem, when they’ll just get new dogs of a different breed (and that’s only if you’ve somehow managed to kill off all the pits already in your country)? Ban whatever dangerous dogs are in fashion with the skids at the time. > [@redtail23](#): > > I do understand the frustrations of policing people who have little to no respect for the law - it’s a never-ending, unwinnable battle. But you’re not really changing any of that with a breed ban, you’re just moving the lines a couple of feet over and pretending that you’ve accomplished something. A couple of feet is a good thing. Not a perfect thing, but a good thing. > [@redtail23](#): > > The problem is that fines are pathetic and punishments short-term. Work to change the laws so that they have some real teeth and then enforce them. The draconian American approach to law enforcement via high incarceration rates is not wanted in Canada. Better to not let dangerous dogs breed than put people in jail for such small matters. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/228 "2004-10-26T03:08:54Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So that sums up my position does it? Well go fuck yourself. In the real world your extreme view on the outrage of a ban is lacking any power so I guess I shouldn’t waste anymore time trying to explain my actual postion. Well, yes, that’s exactly how your position has come across. Sorry if you don’t like the way it sounds; I didn’t care much for it myself. I could go back through your posts and quote the various things you’ve said indicating this attitude, but you got all huffy last time I did that. My “extreme” view is based on fact, which is more than you can say. It is supported by both the CDC and the AVMA, as well as experience, as cited. That it lacks power says more about the failings of our culture than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/229 "2004-10-26T03:23:30Z")
OK, redtail, the bone is back in your court. What is Ontario to do? Give us a plan that better protects us from dangerous dogs without costing us anything more, does not require a burdensome regulatory scheme, does not require significantly more enforcement than the present, keeps offenders out of the courts, and meets the existing policy of penalties that are proportional. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/230 "2004-10-26T03:49:39Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 166: Muffin, thanks for the response. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > I just don’t get it - why the attachment to this idea? I understand that, on the surface, it seems like a quick & easy fix. What I don’t understand is why people are so devoted to it that they’ll repeatedly ignore all evidence to the contrary. I’m asking seriously here, I truly don’t understand the disconnect. > > Yes, it is a quick and easy fix. Not a perfect fix, but hopefully something that will slow down the rate of serious attacks. OK, so essentially you’re ignoring all the evidence, in the hopes that maybe, possibly this might help a little. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > CarnalK, MelCthefirst, anyone - Since you advocate breed-banning as a solution to dog attacks, can you please answer the simple question repeatedly asked already: which dogs are you going to ban? > > > > Pitbulls? Rottweilers? Dobermans? German Shepherds? (All breeds which have, at various times, undergone the “ban 'em!” routine.) > > > > Labradors? Chow chows? Collies? St. Bernards? Newfoundlands? Airedales? Chihuahuas? Mastiffs? > > Any that are disproportionately dangerous, with particular attention to those that are popular with skids. That’s not answering the question, that’s avoiding the question. According to experts (the CDC and the AVMA), as previously cited, no specific breeds are disproportionately dangerous. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > With cross-breeds, how much “bad dog” is too much? 50%? 25%? 1 drop? > > If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e. if it is “substantially similar” to a defined breed or breeds or set of characteristics). OK, what is “substantially similar”? I’m not just trying to be difficult here. It seems like you’re talking around the questions instead of answering them. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > And who gets to decide just what a mutt is made of? Citizens panicked by rumors of killer breeds? Neighbors feuding over other issues that decide to use breed-bans for revenge (a tactic not uncommon around here with code enforcement)? Police officers? Judges? City officials? Animal control? Veterinarians? Please note that the first five generally don’t have any specific knowledge in this area, the next-to-last may or may not know anything about dog breeds, and the latter will tell you there’s no sure method to determine parentage, they’re just guessing. > > If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence. Expert evidence, as previously cited, has said that the only way to definitively determine heritage is through extremely expensive DNA testing. Anything less is not “expert evidence”, it’s guesswork. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > What happens when the owner denies that his unregistered dog is breed “X”? How does one prove/disprove this? > > If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence. Expert evidence, as previously cited, has said that the only way to definitively determine heritage is through extremely expensive DNA testing. Anything less is not “expert evidence”, it’s guesswork. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > Will you switch to banning by characteristics? All dogs over 75 pounds? Over 50 pounds? Over 20 pounds? By height? By color? By head-shape? By body-type > > That might be worth persuing. So you’re not necessarily talking about banning specific breeds, you’re saying that you wouldn’t be opposed to banning any number of unspecified dogs, based on nothing but physical characteristics (i.e., height, weight, color, etc.), correct? > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > Since you seem convinced that this is a valid methodology, can you please give some specifics of how it would work? > > Nope. Never said it was a valid methodology. I’ll leave that to whomever drafts the law. I’m quite satisfied with the duck approach. OK, so you’re NOT saying it’s a valid methodology, but you’re perfectly willing to support it anyway, despite beaucoup evidence that it is not. If someone is drafting a law based on invalid premises, it’s pretty much going to come out with an invalid result, don’t you think? > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > Also, if the ban doesn’t work due to the problems previously mentioned, will you just extend it to include the new “dangerous breeds”? > > Certainly. Roll with the target. I see. Well, that pretty much invalidates any accusations that I’m arguing slippery slope. Thanks. > [@Muffin](#): > > You know how animal control by-laws are drafted in Ontario? All animals of certain types (e.g. all birds, etc.) are banned outright, and then specific exceptions are made to permit certain animals under certain conditions. It is not that you are not permitted to keep certain animals, but rather that you are only allowed to keep certain animals. If banning dangerous dogs is too problematic due to the difficulty in identifying certain types of dogs, then it is a simple matter to legislate around this the way animal control by-laws in Ontario have been doing for years. Ah, thank you. No, I wasn’t aware that’s how your system is set up. The banning makes a modicum more sense under that arrangement, although only if dogs are handled in the same manner as other animals (i.e., all dogs are banned, with only specific exceptions made to permit certain dogs under certain conditions). If you’re actually doing things that way, then I can follow the logic, it would certainly have much the same effect as what I’ve proposed, i.e., strict licensing, but somehow I suspect that method wouldn’t fly with the general public, don’t you? After all, it’s fine to ban someone else’s dog, but it’s a whole different thing when it’s your dog. However, since as far as I’ve seen, the dog ban isn’t being set up along those lines, then the laws for other animals aren’t really relevant. > [@Muffin](#): > > Redtail, here are my responses to your queries in post 210: > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > I don’t understand how an import ban can be effective, unless you’ve already got some means of keeping people from breeding their own and/or bringing in crossbreeds. Can you give me more details? > > I am not aware of an import ban having been proposed. Ah, my error. I think I got confused talking to several different people at once, sorry. > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > If taking dogs away from irresponsible owners won’t solve the problem (because they just get new dogs), then how will taking banned dogs away solve the problem, when they’ll just get new dogs of a different breed (and that’s only if you’ve somehow managed to kill off all the pits already in your country)? > > Ban whatever dangerous dogs are in fashion with the skids at the time. In other words, just keep continually adding breeds to the ban, right? (By the way, I’m unfamiliar with “skids”, can you explain? Thanks.) > [@Muffin](#): > > > [@redtail](#): > > > > I do understand the frustrations of policing people who have little to no respect for the law - it’s a never-ending, unwinnable battle. But you’re not really changing any of that with a breed ban, you’re just moving the lines a couple of feet over and pretending that you’ve accomplished something. > > A couple of feet is a good thing. Not a perfect thing, but a good thing. Well, the law-abiding citizens whose toes you’re crushing to move the line that couple of feet probably have a different opinion. > [@Muffin](#): > > The draconian American approach to law enforcement via high incarceration rates is not wanted in Canada. Better to not let dangerous dogs breed than put people in jail for such small matters. So dogs attacking and killing other animals is a “such small matter”? Dogs attacking people is a “such small matter”? If these things are “such small matters”, then why is a ban needed? I thought these were such great matters that there’s been a huge outcry for change? ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/231 "2004-10-26T04:01:13Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > OK, redtail, the bone is back in your court. What is Ontario to do? Give us a plan that better protects us from dangerous dogs without costing us anything more, does not require a burdensome regulatory scheme, does not require significantly more enforcement than the present, keeps offenders out of the courts, and meets the existing policy of penalties that are proportional. OK, I’m game. But first I’ll need a little information, so I have something to work with. What are the current laws, how are they enforced, what are the costs, and what are the penalties? What is the proposed legislation, how will it be enforced, what will it cost, and what will the penalties be? How are offenders handled under current and proposed laws, if not through the courts? ---
**Author:** ![blackhobyah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blackhobyah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blackhobyah)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/232 "2004-10-26T11:42:56Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Any that are disproportionately dangerous, with particular attention to those that are popular with skids. \ > If there is dispute as to the type of dog, the matter will go before a judge to decide on the basis of expert evidence. The idea of some dogs as being naturally dangerous to humans has been tested in at least one court: > [@](#): > > BREED SPECIFIC Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. > > Around the world, anti-BSL (breed specific legislation) campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The > court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal > challenge in the same way. > [http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/September2002/News060902/bsl.htm](http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/September2002/News060902/bsl.htm) A comment from a British (well, Irish) member of Parliament on the British Dangerous Dog Act: > [@](#): > > We had perfectly workable legislation on dangerous dogs in Northern Ireland before the enactment of the Dangerous Dogs > Act. We on this Bench advised the Government simply to apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom. They declined, making the excuse that it did not work. Nobody in Northern Ireland thought that. We all thought that it worked quite > successfully. We have not managed to improve matters in Great Britain from that day to this. > Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry) > [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961112/debtext/61112-24.htm](http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961112/debtext/61112-24.htm) > > This is the relevant part of the legislation in question for those who want to read it: [Dangerous Dogs Act 1991](http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910065_en_2.htm#mdiv2) And it’s not only MPs who think that breed specific legislation is a bad idea: > [@](#): > > On the 9th October 2003, the Kennel Club hosted a meeting to discuss the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991, with a view to making representations to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and suggesting ways that the current Act could be amended or even rewritten. > > This meeting came about as a result of the initial forum organised by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at New Scotland Yard in June. Organisations in attendance included the MPS, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust (the new name for the > NCDL) and the RSPCA. Chairing the meeting was Chief Superintendent Simon Ovens of the MPS, who, amongst other duties, is responsible for Dangerous Dog policy in the London area. > > The MPS are regarded as nationwide leaders with reference to their views and policy regarding ‘dangerous dogs’ and with their proactive assistance, dogs held under the DDA in the London area that > pose no danger to the public have already been re-homed after behavioural assessment. > > All organisations present were in agreement that the DDA needs modification as breed specific legislation is not the solution. Furthermore, all agreed that a large percentage of dog biting incidents were due to the irresponsible actions > of owners, who had either not taken the time and trouble to train their dog correctly, or had indeed trained them to become aggressive. > [http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/pressoffice/releases/kcPressRelease.asp?prId=558](http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/pressoffice/releases/kcPressRelease.asp?prId=558) An interesting comment which might be worth considering in the light of some of the hysteria that the mere mention of the world “pit bull” seems to evoke in some people: > [@](#): > > Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California and author of “The Culture of Fear”, points to the disproportional media coverage given to certain kinds of events relative to the “near invisibility” of other > kinds of injury that seriously hurt and kill people. Dogs meet criteria for what Glassner calls “cultural scapegoating.” Bradley puts it well when she notes that dogs (or perhaps their “irresponsible owners”) might qualify as “unambiguous > villains that allow us to distance ourselves from the responsibility for the real problems in our society.” There’s a whole other discussion to be had here about the misapprehensions people appear to hold about the ease with which you can breed very human aggressive dogs, and a considerable lack of understanding about the nature of dogs, but this seems to have developed into a very long thread already. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/233 "2004-10-26T13:08:06Z")
Pit bulls are no more dangerous than chihuahuas? Sorry, but despite what the fine dog loving folks in Alabama believe, I remain unconvinced that I will suffer no more harm when attacked by a chihuahuas than when attacked by a pit bull. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/234 "2004-10-26T13:37:29Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > OK, I’m game. But first I’ll need a little information, so I have something to work with. What are the current laws, how are they enforced, what are the costs, and what are the penalties? What is the proposed legislation, how will it be enforced, what will it cost, and what will the penalties be? How are offenders handled under current and proposed laws, if not through the courts? Are suggesting that the status quo is the answer to **Muffins** challenge to you? Get serious. He’s challenging you to improve on the Ontario proposal, not the current situation. You really can’t answer his question can you ? ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/235 "2004-10-26T14:07:58Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck (i.e. if it is “substantially similar” to a defined breed or breeds or set of characteristics) . Criminal laws have to be objective. They must adequately put people on notice of what is prohibited and what is allowed. “Substantially similar” is far too slippery a test. If a police officer sees my boy dog, a terrier mix, he or she could well decide that my dog looks “substantially similar” to a pit bull, and confiscate my dog. Maybe he really thinks it does look like a pit, maybe he thinks that I look suspicious but can’t find anything else to book me on, whatever. Because of one cop’s arbitrary decision, my dog gets confiscated and locked up in an animal shelter. I have to go to court and try and convince a judge that the cop is wrong and I am right. This costs me money, time, and at the end of the day, I could still lose my dog because some cop decided that today would be a good day to harass the brown-skinned guy with the terrier. More importantly from my perspective is the fact that during the time I’m trying to straighten this out, my dog will be wasting away in a shelter surrounded by strangers, scared out of his mind. And do I really trust that Animal Control will properly segregate “dogs whose legality is to be determined” from “dogs who were picked up and are next in the queue to be put down”? Even if I “win” at the end of the day, I could still lose because my dog was placed in the care of Animal Control and accidentally euthanized. And the only reason he was in there in the first place was because some cop decided that he “looked like a duck.” Those of you proposing breed bans with flip comments like “if it looks like a duck” or “I don’t care about doggy racism” just don’t get that we’re talking about sentient creatures with feelings for whom we care very deeply. And we recongize that something as vague as a breed ban could potentially require us to surrender our dogs even though our dogs have not done anything wrong. I would have no problem with a system that prospectively imposed restrictions on dog ownership, such as a requirement that dogs be spayed or neutered (unless the owner holds a special breeding license whose requirements are strictly enforced), requiring owners to complete a course of approved basic obedience training, and mandatory microchipping. But a regime that imposes after-the-fact restrictions on dog ownership based on something as vague as appearance simply does not give me any comfort against random, discretionary enforcement. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/236 "2004-10-26T14:27:16Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Well, yes, that’s exactly how your position has come across. Sorry if you don’t like the way it sounds; I didn’t care much for it myself. I could go back through your posts and quote the various things you’ve said indicating this attitude, but you got all huffy last time I did that. > > My “extreme” view is based on fact, which is more than you can say. It is supported by both the CDC and the AVMA, as well as experience, as cited. > > That it lacks power says more about the failings of our culture than anything else. Hey shithead, some free advice: realize that “expert opinion” on future legislation is not proof and don’t assume your opponents are lying when they say they believe something. That way you look like a reasonable person, rather than a fuckhead zealot. Hope our culture never catches up with you. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/237 "2004-10-26T15:22:27Z")
Hmm, apparently bits of the “Amicus Brief by WAF submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court” (WAF=Washington Animal Foundation, now “American Canine Association”) are sprinkled throughout the anti-BSL world with minimal accreditation. Steel Heart Kennels has a page [here](http://www.angelfire.com/nc/NCEBA/) that has a link to that submission(the intro anyway) in a wordpad doc. It has some stuff to make you think but I’m dubious about their claims of “valuable studies show no difference in jaw strengths between breeds”. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/238 "2004-10-26T15:57:21Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > OK, I’m game. But first I’ll need a little information, so I have something to work with. What are the current laws, how are they enforced, what are the costs, and what are the penalties? What is the proposed legislation, how will it be enforced, what will it cost, and what will the penalties be? How are offenders handled under current and proposed laws, if not through the courts? You mean you have been posting all along without foundation? That’s unfortunate. As far as needing information goes, you will have to do your own homework. I await your proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/239 "2004-10-26T16:21:29Z")
> [@jeevmon](#): > > Criminal laws have to be objective. They must adequately put people on notice of what is prohibited and what is allowed. “Substantially similar” is far too slippery a test. The test here is “a law will be found unconstitutionally vague if it so lacks in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate” (R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 at 643). It is quite easy to debate whether a dog is substantially similar to a particular breed or defined body type. > [@jeevmon](#): > > But a regime that imposes after-the-fact restrictions on dog ownership based on something as vague as appearance simply does not give me any comfort against random, discretionary enforcement. No one has proposed any “after-the-fact restrictions on dog ownership” other than that certain existing dogs will not be permitted to impregnate other dogs. That’s hardly something to get in a flap about. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988/240 "2004-10-26T16:44:34Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The test here is “a law will be found unconstitutionally vague if it so lacks in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate” (R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606 at 643). It is quite easy to debate whether a dog is substantially similar to a particular breed or defined body type. Dade County, Florida has a procedure for determining whether or not a dog is a pit bull. As far as I know, it works for them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ban-on-pit-bulls/266988.md?page=13)